March 7, 2012

Obama dodges Maher question at yesterday’s “press conference”

Evidently, somebody from HuffPo (perhaps taking a cue from Sarah Palin?) went off script and Obama, as is his untelepromptered wont, panicked, pointedly ignoring the reporter and talking over the question to call on a friendlier one from a CNN scribe. The query the snubbed HuffPo reporter attempted to get Obama to address concerned the President’s acceptance, via a Super PAC, of Bill Maher’s million dollar donation — this despite Maher’s long history of vile comments against conservatives, in particular (and apropos of yesterday’s press fluffing) conservative women.

After all, if Obama was driven to phone poor put-up champion for women’s “reproductive rights” Sandra Fluke over the hateful misogynistic words of Rush Limbaugh, why is he less concerned with, say, Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt” very publicly? Does this not seem a fair question? Does it not speak to a kind of obvious — and perhaps even ostentatious — double standard? Does it not suggest that none of what we were watching yesterday was in any way real, that instead it was but an orchestrated bit of propaganda meant to bolster Obama’s re-election campaign, with a complaint press corp playing right along?

I guess we’ll never know.

Because luckily the press conference ended without further incident. The mainstream press has been able and willing to pretend the question was never asked. And the GOP establishment has decided to foist on us the one candidate who not only can’t tackle Obama on the individual mandate that will forever change the relationship between the government and the governed — but one who has already told us that he won’t be questioning Obama on any of these kinds of sordid inconsistencies, either.

Because like him, says the GOP establishment’s preferred candidate, President Obama loves this country. And just like the right, the left is simply given to a healthy voicing of its political opinion,s respectfully and with passion, not (as some would have it) attempting a soft coup by waging persistent attacks on individual liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and so on.

In fact, suggesting such things is outrageous. And unhelpful. And frankly, ungentlemanly. And we’ll have none of it.

I said good day, sir!

Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:36am
16 comments | Trackback

Comments (16)

  1. the GOP establishment has decided to foist on us the one candidate who not only can’t tackle Obama on the individual mandate that will forever change the relationship between the government and the governed — but one who has already told us that he won’t be questioning Obama on any of these kinds of sordid inconsistencies, either.

    Because nobody can beat Obama, but we might win back the Senate if we nominate someone who won’t turn off the moderates and independents —who we really want because they’re like cool an’ shit. Not like those conservatives freaks who get made fun of all the time. We don’t want to get that on our sharply pressed trousers.

    Anyways, what was I saying, oh yeah. We might win the Senate if the teatards don’t scare normal voters away.

    How do win the Senate back with a guy at the top of the ticket who’s done nothing but alienate and depress those conservatives who we need to vote (but only vote, other’n that they should shut up)?

    Didn’t I just tell you the shut up?

  2. The perfect progressive liberal defense.

    When Taibbi, Olbermann, Mahar, and Schultz tell liberals what to think few of us even hear what it is they’re saying and no politician pays them any mind. (Sorry, fellas, but it’s true.) It matters more to society what a person with a big following says than what a person with a small following says. I would have thought this point was obvious, but apparently it isn’t.

    It matters not what you say or your intent, all that matters is what your audience hears and how many hear it. It being what we on the left say it is of course.

  3. Proggressives can say whatever they want because nobody listen’s to them anyways? That’s an interesting argument.

    Noah’s employer’s might want to rethink his paycheck.

  4. Nobody listens to Maher and Schultz, except that sitting members of Congress and the DNC Chair appear on their shows to chortle and agree while they say what it is that they say. So, in effect, Maher’s and Schultz’ audience is rarified and full of the most influential people on the left and in the Democratic party whose participation is necessary to the very existence of their shows, however we are to believe that what they say is somehow different and unworthy of scrutiny.

  5. Breitbart’s dance with the MBM continues past his death.

  6. Anybody see Nick Gillespie’s article at Reason?

    Not bad. Comments are pretty funny. A tad juvenile (and that’s obviously right up my alley), but funny.

  7. Breitbart Big Gov posts its response to the link motionview provides there, in part, explaining when the rest will appear.

  8. Winzip Computing sent me an e-mail soliciting for Carbonite today; I promptly unsubscribed from their mailing list and sent them an e-mail explaining why. They will get no more business from me.

  9. It’s interesting, by the way, that Barry had already developed his fake quasi-Southern speaking accent by the time of his Harvard days, isn’t it?

  10. Lybd,

    That’s where I got the link in my #3 from.

  11. The comments on that Gillespie article are just killing me.

    I’m down to this one: “Vinegar douches bring a whole new level of meaning to “she’s a little tart”.”

  12. Taranto swings his hammer home.

    Savannah Guthrie raises the question, to which Mark Halperin answers: *Yeah, but he’s got a special dispensation to act paternalisitically! He’s a dad!*

  13. I guess we have to hope Tapper can get one past the gatekeepers… or at least make Jay Carney look (more) foolish.

Leave a Reply